Skip to main content

Illegalization of Abortion

Here’s my argument for why I think that the illegalization of abortion is philosophically problematic:

(P1) x is a human just in case x has a genetic code that is distinctively human.

(P2) A fetus, at some point in the fetal development, acquires a genetic code that is distinctively human.

(P3) So, at a certain point in the fetal development, a fetus becomes a bona fide human.

(P4) From a legal standpoint, the right to life of a human is protected by the law.

(P5) There is no characterization of a human that can objectively identify its instantiations other than the mere possession of a distinctively human genetic code.

(P6) So, a fetus, at a certain point in the fetal development, has the right to life that is protected by the law.

(P7) However, Judith Jarvis Thomson presents an argument that persuasively proves that the fact that the fetus has the right to life does not necessarily entail that it has the right to use the mother’s body.

(C) Therefore, even if a fetus has the right to life that is protected by the law, it’s not clear how such a fact can sufficiently justify the legal prohibition of abortion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading evangelical apologist, is featured in a major article in The Chronicle of Higher Education [see http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en ]. That should be a surprise, since CHE is not known for having a taste for people like Craig. I think that Craig is overrated by evangelicals, but underrated by academics. His triumphalism, I think, weakens the merits of his arguments, since it underrates what I consider to be persuasive cases for atheism. It tends to caricature his opponents’ arguments as unworthy of serious considerations. However, his skills as a debater are unparalleled. He is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Of course, winning a debate is not a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of one’s claim. But I think that his opponents, like Alexander Rosenberg (Duke philosopher) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist), are mistaken for downplaying the role of formal debates in ...
2 comments
Read more

Politicization of the Pulpit

After the death of Jerry Falwell and the declining popularity of Pat Robertson, surprisingly the legacy of the evangelical right persists in politically conservative media (like Fox News) and conservative evangelical churches (like some Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God churches). Equipped with sensationalistic jesters and political preachers, bearers of such legacy can pester the current administration. No wonder Obama and his advisers are launching an attack on Fox News, the main source of information for the evangelical right. Since the presidential campaign season for the 2008 election, I heard numerous anti-Obama sermons in a large congregation with a devoutly Republican pastor. A devoutly Republican pastor is one who cleverly subsumes the Christian message under the Republican agendas. Many conservative evangelical churches have devoutly Republican pastors, who regularly politicize the pulpit by unnecessarily turning congregants against Obama. In a subtle way, this is danger...
2 comments
Read more

Health Care Reform Bill and the Town Hall Meetings

I am annoyed by the recent town hall meetings with some U.S. senators and representatives. With angry citizens who are clearly misinformed by the conservative media and conservative politicians, rational discourses regarding Obama’s health care reform bill seem impossible. How can one have a rational discourse with anyone who is overwhelmed by his or her irrational impulses, in addition to deeply held false beliefs? They are misinformed considering that their claims are drawn from fallacious inferences (e.g. slippery slope, red herring, straw man, ad hominem, etc.). They are moved by their fears, prejudices, paranoia, insecurities, false assumptions, etc. Of course, conservative media (like Fox News) and conservative politicians (like Sarah Palin) are responsible for fanning the flame with fallacious, sensationalist, exaggerated, and caricatured claims about the proposed health care reform bill. Loud mouths with messages lacking in substance usually work in inspiring the masses. Substa...
1 comment
Read more